A Capitol View More Fixing of Things That Aren’t Broken By Bill Deere T he campaign to economically regulate FBO pricing took its latest step recently, when a national pilot organization filed informal complaints against aviation businesses at three airports. It is certainly reasonable for an association that represents pilots to act as a consumer om- budsman, just as NATA does on behalf of aviation businesses. However, I very much agree with NATA’s President Marty Hiller who, pointing to the big picture noted, “This action is disappointing, coming at a time when the general aviation community is confronting a serious effort to privatize our nation’s air traffic control system. General aviation (GA) as we know it in this nation is under a real threat. We need to stand united right now and not be concerned with distractions like this.” Think Marty is exaggerating? I was on a recent call where the same national pilot organization was telling pilot groups from around the country the debate on ATC privatiza- tion has reached a point where the next seven days are critical to the future of GA in this nation. To be clear, neither NATA nor its membership is afraid of a debate on FBO pricing. In fact, I am proud that NATA insists that viewpoints on controversial issues be aired directly with our members. On November 8th , NATA members will hear di- rectly from AOPA General Counsel Ken Mead, who has agreed to join us at the 2017 Aviation Business Roundtable, to discuss pricing on a panel that will also include FBOs, airports and fuelers. I have assured Ken that no flak jacket is required. The issue of FBO pricing is not new, and the pressure aviation businesses often face for more improvements and additional private investment can ignore the reality that these costs are ultimately paid for by the users. However, what is new, is the increasing lack of collaboration to address these issues. Historically, industry groups work in partnership on Aviation Business Journal | 3rd Quarter 2017 issues on behalf of their memberships, and in this case aircraft owners, aviation businesses and airports should be sitting down to address concerns and develop solutions, not looking for government regulation. This campaign to economically regulate FBOs began in secrecy, and ignores the fact the Department of Justice reviews FBO consolidations and requires adjustments if necessary to assure adequate competition continues. It seems reasonable that if a pilot organization felt its members were threatened at these locations, that their historic mission would have brought aircraft owners, aviation businesses and airports together, not pitted them against each other. The commitment of the industry to work together on an unleaded avgas replacement exemplifies the potential of col- laborative relationships. This effort provides users, businesses and airports opportunities to review incentives for alternative fuels as they hopefully become more readily available in the next several years. While NATA does not take a position on pricing at indi- vidual FBOs, the association is providing important industry perspective, supplying both the FAA and local decisionmakers context as to the factors that go into FBO pricing. As you may recall, earlier this year NATA presented a state of the aviation business sector overview to the FAA. The overview, developed with the assistance of FBO and air charter members, discusses the costs of operating airport businesses and the many vari- ables that go into determining its pricing structure—includ- ing capital invested, lease duration, fuel volume, personnel expenses, hours of operation, and traffic types. Press coverage of the informal complaints has been bal- anced and, most important, not accepting as axiomatic the assertion that FBO pricing is “egregious.” Especially gratifying Continued on page 8 7
